http://www.hardmac.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2005-08-10#4352
http://www.concretesurf.co.nz/osx86/viewtopic.php?t=84&lighter=

Looks like a little bit of effort to get it running, but it works.

8/10/2005 10:46:09 PM

not much effort at all.

you left out http://www.research.gwgaming.net/wiki/

[Edited on August 10, 2005 at 11:18 PM. Reason : .]

8/10/2005 11:17:13 PM

Quote :

"not much effort at all."

haha maybe you didnt read the SIXTEEN STEP TUTORIAL

they was talkin bout lennyx and shit

8/10/2005 11:28:32 PM

I've seen longer tutorials on how to remove spyware.

8/11/2005 8:28:21 AM

ooooooooooooooooooo

me likey

8/11/2005 8:40:20 AM

also, if you have a processor that supports SSE3 then there's really only one step.

8/11/2005 10:03:29 AM

Now someone just has to write the patches to remap sse3 instructions for non sse3 cpus. I give it a month max.

And I called this happening long ago.

And now yall watch, because in less than 2 years, Apple will release a vanilla OSX.x86 that is hardware indepedent.

8/12/2005 7:21:09 PM

^ Everyone saw this coming.

I say 2 years is too quick though. Maybe 3 or 4 years.

8/12/2005 7:23:30 PM

Saw this running personally today on a Compaq Laptop @ 2.4Ghz with 512mb of RAM NATIVELY. Boot pc, it boots OSX. Amazing, really. I'm with Noen, I give this a month...

8/12/2005 7:32:50 PM

Quote :

"I've seen longer tutorials on how to remove spyware."

haha

8/12/2005 7:39:19 PM

I'd like an iso with th sse3 stuff in tact. I'm sure there's someone running it on a venice

8/12/2005 11:12:02 PM

I don't think that anyone cracking this will cause Apple to release an issue of OS X for a generic PC.

Most of the people doing this wouldn't buy Apple hardware anyway. It would require Apple to completely restructure their business model.

If people pirating and forcing OS X to run on a generic box causes Apple to become another Microsoft, selling their operating system through Dell, HP, etc. machines, then what is the next transition after that? Tons of people pirate Windows as it is, how is Apple helping themselves by making it easier to pirate the software?

I don't think it makes good business sense to make your OS easier to pirate.

8/13/2005 7:16:01 AM

psst. stop believing the hype on piracy.


The amount of money "lost" by the very small percentage of people that pirate software is hardly relevant.


cue Noen...

8/13/2005 9:14:51 PM

^^ how exactly does making your os more compatible and function natively on more hardware make it more or less secure, in the piracy sense?

8/13/2005 9:46:26 PM

Quote :

"And I called this happening long ago."

I called this, hahhaha what a fucking fag you are

8/14/2005 2:14:58 AM

i know right. like it takes a lot of insight to realize people were gonna get around the hardware restrictions

8/14/2005 3:03:42 AM

that last post signifies the beginning of unending mindless drivel from Noen about how he can see the future and predicted the birth of Bill Gates before the latter's mom was pregnant.

8/14/2005 3:09:51 AM

the continuation of mindless drivel, you mean

8/14/2005 2:26:25 PM

No, this is the first part of my prediction that Apple will release a vanilla x86 version.

Which, according to the last thread about Intel and Apple, not very many people agreed with.

Quote :

"I don't think that anyone cracking this will cause Apple to release an issue of OS X for a generic PC. Most of the people doing this wouldn't buy Apple hardware anyway. It would require Apple to completely restructure their business model. If people pirating and forcing OS X to run on a generic box causes Apple to become another Microsoft, selling their operating system through Dell, HP, etc. machines, then what is the next transition after that? Tons of people pirate Windows as it is, how is Apple helping themselves by making it easier to pirate the software? I don't think it makes good business sense to make your OS easier to pirate."

You don't have a shit's clue about Piracy. Apple software piracy is fucking RAMPANT. MUCH higher per capita than any PC developer. You think making a PC version would INCREASE the piracy rate? HAHAHAh. Obviously you don't remember the cases of people walking into CompUSA with a usb drive and downloading the thousands of dollars of software from the Apple demo pc's, to take it all home and have at it.

I for one will be buying a copy of OSX as soon as it's available for PC.

8/15/2005 7:41:38 PM

http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/14/1322208&tid=181&tid=3

8/15/2005 7:46:26 PM

Noen, I take issue with your choice of phrase: "per capita."

8/15/2005 10:49:00 PM

Incidentally, apple users spend more per capita on software than PC users, too. That doesn't conflict with the more piracy per capita claim.

i dont even know why this point came up, but drivel on.

8/16/2005 12:25:51 AM

It makes sense to make your software easier to pirate.

But NOT A FUCKING MATURE SOFTWARE PRODUCT.

I don't think making Photoshop easier to pirate would help Adobe.

Not that anyone is stopped anyway.

8/16/2005 12:28:29 AM

Quote :

"Obviously you don't remember the cases of people walking into CompUSA with a usb drive and downloading the thousands of dollars of software from the Apple demo pc's, to take it all home and have at it."

What are they going home and running the demo software on? Hardware that was purchased from Apple.

Besides, what software were they stealing? Not OS X, maybe some Apple high end application but most likely they were stealing Office X, Photoshop, etc. This doesn't hurt Apple's bottom line very much.

Again, my point stands, Apple would have to completely restructure their business model. Why would they do that when they are more profitable than ever with the current model?

8/16/2005 9:34:28 AM

I like how you just pulled that business analysis out of your ass.

8/16/2005 9:45:27 AM

^Posturing as an expert on any matter is nothing new for Tech Talk, why can't I get away with it?

8/16/2005 9:59:38 AM

part of the problem

8/16/2005 10:08:15 AM

There's actually two reasons why Apple would never release a vanilla x86-based OS X.

1. Back in the early 90's, Steve Jobs tried this while he was the CEO of NeXT. Their slick, high-end hardware wasn't selling well so they tried to compete against Windows and OS/2 in the OS market by releasing a vanilla x86-based NeXT OS. Needless to say, this strategy failed, as most of the user base wanted the functionality of Windows and weren't willing to pay the 150 dollars for what would've equated to a more usable but less functional operating system. In short, there was no market for it, and as Jobs has been following a lot of precedents set by NeXT in his stewardship of Apple, you can be assured that he won't repeat this same mistake.

2. Apple's always been a brand that focuses on quality, and you can tell that lots of time and effort went into creating the hardware and software that they release. Part of this quality comes from designing the software to run on a specific kind of hardware. Unlike in a PC, where the processor, bus, peripherals, cards, and other devices can vary, Macs have a particular combination of hardware that Apple dictates and writes its software for. The benefit of this is that you don't have a lot of conflicts between software and hardware and you don't have to worry about third-party hardware drivers screwing up. If Apple was to release a vanilla x86-based Mac OS X, they'd have to write thousands of different drivers to ensure uniform quality on all computers. On top of this, they'd most likely run into the NeXT quagmire of having a superior OS but no market or user base to sell it to. Apple makes its money based on hardware sales, and there's simply no good reason for them to release a PC-based Mac OS X.

However, if you're interested in giving it a shot, it is possible, even if it runs a little unevenly. If you have an SSE3-compatible processor, it's as close as you can get to having a Mac without having Apple hardware.

8/17/2005 11:54:38 AM

^ i stopped reading after "early 90's"

8/17/2005 3:50:16 PM

Quote :

"What are they going home and running the demo software on? Hardware that was purchased from Apple. Besides, what software were they stealing? Not OS X, maybe some Apple high end application but most likely they were stealing Office X, Photoshop, etc. This doesn't hurt Apple's bottom line very much. Again, my point stands, Apple would have to completely restructure their business model. Why would they do that when they are more profitable than ever with the current model?"

It wasn't demo software, it was full version software.

It was mainly Office and the various high end apps yes, because back then Apple didnt really make any software worth a shit.

And you are a fucking IDIOT. ~95% of Apple's PROFIT comes from Software and Services. They hardly break even on hardware. It makes PERFECT sense to broaden the software to larger markets (LOOK AT FUCKING ITUNES FOR GOD SAKES).

Quote :

"1. Back in the early 90's, Steve Jobs tried this while he was the CEO of NeXT. Their slick, high-end hardware wasn't selling well so they tried to compete against Windows and OS/2 in the OS market by releasing a vanilla x86-based NeXT OS."

NeXT didn't sell because it was a shitty consumer OS with little driver support in a time of massive small scale hardware in the PC market.

OSX on the other hand is a beautiful OS, with mass appeal and understanding, in a PC market with very few competing brands.

Quote :

"2. Apple's always been a brand that focuses on quality, and you can tell that lots of time and effort went into creating the hardware and software that they release. "

No one is saying for them to stop making hardware. Just that the SOFTWARE should be available to everything.

Quote :

"If Apple was to release a vanilla x86-based Mac OS X, they'd have to write thousands of different drivers to ensure uniform quality on all computers. "

No, this myth has been dispelled in the most recent Apple on Intel thread. It's complete bullshit, and Apple *could* implement MASS driver support in no time, if they so chose.

Quote :

"On top of this, they'd most likely run into the NeXT quagmire of having a superior OS but no market or user base to sell it to. "

No, not applicable or true.

Quote :

"Apple makes its money based on hardware sales, and there's simply no good reason for them to release a PC-based Mac OS X."

Again not true.

8/17/2005 4:06:30 PM

I told ya

drivel

8/17/2005 4:27:41 PM

Quote :

"~95% of Apple's PROFIT comes from Software and Services."

link?

8/17/2005 5:53:27 PM

http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/10/107357/reports/10QQ3FY05.pdf

Fun reading starts around page 25

8/17/2005 6:00:11 PM

Quote :

"They hardly break even on hardware."

i hardly believe that for their monitors... and for the hunk of junk IBM processor, they sure seemed overpriced to me, must be that the hardware manufacturers jacked up the price for Apple.

[Edited on August 17, 2005 at 6:49 PM. Reason : .]

8/17/2005 6:47:16 PM

if you click on the link I posted, you'll realize that software alone is like 10% of their total sales.

Their major sellers are the Mac hardware, followed by the Ipods...

Itunes is like 10%

8/17/2005 6:49:45 PM

Total Mac Sales: $1,565
iPod Sales: $1,103
iTMS, iPod accessories: $241
Peripherals and other hardware: $266
Software and services: $345

Total net sales: $3,520


Software, services, iTMS and iPod accessories add up to $586 = 16.6% of total sales.



Net sales: $3,520
Cost of sales: $2,476

Gross Margin: $1,044


R&D: $145
Selling, General, & Administrative: $472



ummmmm, I suck at this stuff. what's it all mean?

8/17/2005 7:03:26 PM

Quote :

"if you click on the link I posted, you'll realize that software alone is like 10% of their total sales. Their major sellers are the Mac hardware, followed by the Ipods... Itunes is like 10%"

that link provides net sales i didn't see anywhere where it broke down the cost of sales for hardware vs. ipod... i think what Noen is referring to is that most of the cost of sales is in hardware meaning they make less profit then per say their software/services, even if their net sales are higher... we need gross numbers to have a fair comparison

8/17/2005 7:57:15 PM

Dude

You'd be a fucking faggot if you think you can differentiate between profits from software and profits from hardware. They go hand in hand.

And developing software isn't cheap either...

Seriously...ARE YOU FOLKS SANE?

OK...time for Noen's side of the drivel.

8/17/2005 8:42:20 PM

^ then there are a shit-ton more quotes coming.

8/17/2005 9:26:54 PM

Apple does not make much profit at all on the iTunes. Yes, expanding iTunes to other platforms and markets increases revenue by volume but it also helps to sell fucking iPods where they make their profit!!!!

http://www.yeald.com/Yeald/a/30911/will_itunes_ever_make_a_lot_of_money_for_apple.html

8/17/2005 9:42:08 PM

Gargs you need to learn some shit about basic business because it's obvious you have no fucking clue about the difference between MANUFACTURING and SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT.

The FIRST thing you need to take into account is the HUGE cost of the Apple stores, which are only necessary to sell hardware.

Based on your OWN PDF here are the damn numbers you need to know:

Retail operating costs run $83 million and lease costs are at $583 million(pg29).
Next to take out is warranty costs of hardware, $174 million (pg17)
Hardware R&D is $343 million (387 total (pg2) -44 for software (pg9))

Cost of sales is at $7245, of which we can eliminate 1776 from operating expenses (pg2)and 1593 from from accrued expenses (pg9) leaving us with

Leaving ~3876 million in costs for hardware directly.

Adding in the other associated costs for hardware we get a grand total cost of ~5059 million

Net sales of hardware were $8822 ($4,664 (computers), $3,328 (ipod) and $830 for peripherals (pg27))

Thats a profit margin of 42%

Software sales on the other hand have an operating cost of 44 million in R&D. That's it. They made $1431 ($797 General software, $634 from iTunes et al music products (pg27))

Profit margin of 96.9%

Now lets look at the market ability for their hardware. Ipod has 95% market share. So it aint going to sell much more than it is already and sales are going to decline SWIFTLY over the coming 3-5 years. It's a saturated market. That alone accounts currently for damn near HALF of their hardware sales. Without ipod, Apple is NOT a hardware profitable company. Take a look at their numbers before the ipod launch for absolute proof of that.

I am really glad gargs posted that link, because I will admit I am suprised at the actual profit from hardware in pure numbers, but I'm not at ALL suprised about the profit percentage.

I will absolutely admit that I am dead wrong on the percentages of profit.

Looks like its more like 25% profit from software and 75% hardware.

What I am DEAD RIGHT about though, based on those numbers, is that the hardware sales are going to decline. Ipod accounts for nearly HALF of total hardware sales and with total market dominance there is no room to grow.

You have 40ish percent profitability on hardware with no market left and 97 percent profitability on software with a VAST untapped market.

If you can't see the difference in these, and realize that software is the only fucking way that Apple is going to continue to be profitable, you dont deserve to be in college.

8/18/2005 1:06:58 AM

dude

your original drivel was not about profit margins.

8/18/2005 12:18:29 PM

Quote :

"Ipod accounts for nearly HALF of total hardware sales and with total market dominance there is no room to grow. "

ummmm...Ipods are PoS...you WILL have to replace an Ipod with a newer one WITHIN 2 years. I would like to think that an Ipod for Apple is like Windows for Microsoft.

Market dominance but people still have to upgrade.

8/18/2005 12:23:07 PM

Replace the battery every two years.

But even then, IF that happens, that means they will only be making money every two years from it. It's a stagnant market.

Windows is much the same way, except they make a shit ton higher margin on windows. Which is why you see Microsoft branching out into every damn industry they can compete in (xbox anybody?)

8/18/2005 4:47:01 PM

you're dumb

but carry on

8/18/2005 4:48:09 PM

How am I dumb? In the damn SEC filing YOU posted, apple says that earning will likely fall due to waning sales in LOW MARGIN products like the ipod.

This is business 101 man. profit margin is much more important long term than gross sales.

8/18/2005 4:51:30 PM

drivel drivel drivel

mindless mindless mindless


Noen Noen Noen

8/18/2005 5:04:52 PM

Noen,

You provide salient points of argument with plenty of facts to support your views, but I must disagree with you on several of these issues.

Quote :

"NeXT didn't sell because it was a shitty consumer OS with little driver support in a time of massive small scale hardware in the PC market. OSX on the other hand is a beautiful OS, with mass appeal and understanding, in a PC market with very few competing brands."

NeXT was light years ahead of any competing operating system at its time. It provided unparalled stability and a UNIX base in a time when most people were still using DOS 6. Remember, these were the days when Linux was little more than a little thing roaming around on BBS systems.

The reason that it didn't succeed was that Microsoft's Windows had all the application support and NeXT couldn't get third-party developers to write software for it. Remember, this is also how hardware systems like the Apple Lisa met their downfall: little third-party software was written for it. While Mac OS X has a good software base, Windows has a much larger base of software, and most average users who aren't used to the Mac would wish to stay with the reliable base of Windows.

Furthermore, as Microsoft is a big company, they have the financial means to offer large incentives to equipment manufacturers like Dell and Compaq for installing Windows on all their new machines. Since the majority of Windows users purchased it with their computer and not from a store, this is an important thing to take note of. If Apple tried to subsidize Mac OS X, they would very likely lose money in the process rather than turning a profit, as, even if PC companies offered it as an option on their machine, most of the user base would choose Windows.

On top of all this, Microsoft could play a few dirty tricks, like they've done in the past, and tell all PC manufacturers offering Mac OS X as an option that if they were to continue doing so, they could no longer purchase Windows for their computers. As this would bankrupt the company, few OEMs would want to risk this.

Quote :

"No, this myth has been dispelled in the most recent Apple on Intel thread. It's complete bullshit, and Apple *could* implement MASS driver support in no time, if they so chose."

What that thread didn't tell you was that, on many computers, networking, sound, video, and other useful OS elements have trouble working. On my own, I have no sound or networking support, the system runs slowly, and the mouse cursor is jerky. Still, it's Mac OS X and I'm an Apple fanatic, so I'm not complaining too much, but your average user would likely not have this same point of view.

On the driver issue, have you ever tried to write a driver? Drivers are complex things and to produce a single decent driver, it takes quite a bit of time. Even if Apple set their entire programming force to produce nothing but drivers, they would not have the knowledge of the device that the hardware producers do, and it would take a long period of time to write enough drivers to support a typical PC. Even then, the quality of the operating system on every PC would not be assured, and thus it would not be up to Apple's typical spec of quality.

Quote :

"No, not applicable or true."

An excellent retort, if I do say so myself, but we've covered this issue earlier in this post. OEM manufacturers would have trouble including OS X on their machines and the majority of PC users wouldn't buy it even if they could, as Windows has a much broader base of software, and the Mac OS does not have a great selection of the things people buy PC's for. What's that? In a word: games.

Quote :

"Again not true."

Other posters have already covered this, but I figured that I'd provide a little history to prove why Apple currently subsists on hardware. Let's turn the clock back to 1996, back when Apple was led by a guy named Gil Amelio. Apple didn't have any iPod or iMac at this time, and their entire revenue base was from sales of their quality-challenged computers and the Mac OS. Apple tried the Microsoft technique of releasing 'upgrades' to the Mac OS, and it didn't work very well in their favor.

Around this time, Michael Dell was asked for some Apple stock advice, and he told the reporter that the company 'should be liquidated and the dividends given to the stockholders.' If it wasn't for the release of the iMac in 1997 and the subsequent stylistic rejuvenation of the Apple brand, the company may have become like Commodore (sob, sob) in its last days: an innovative company without a large group of people to sell things to.

So, to all the tl;dr posters amongst us, here's your executive summary: if Apple were to port Mac OS X to the PC, they'd have a hard time selling it and maintaining the level of Apple quality across different PC configurations. The end result would be lost money, and, as embarking on a costly, money-wasting process is a bad idea, this is why we will never see Mac OS X on a vanilla x86 platform.

[Edited on August 18, 2005 at 10:18 PM. Reason : clearing up a little grammatical weirdness]

8/18/2005 10:13:40 PM

Quote :

"NeXT was light years ahead of any competing operating system at its time. It provided unparalled stability and a UNIX base in a time when most people were still using DOS 6. Remember, these were the days when Linux was little more than a little thing roaming around on BBS systems. "

Next ONLY ran on NeXT computers. It was a closed architecture OS. It had NO viability on home computers because it was WAY too fucking big (they had to INVENT the commercial magneto optical disk, because it was impractical to load it with floppies).

Next problem was the NeXTcube (the machine it ran on) was vastly overpriced and underpowered. Unix workstations were faster and cost 20-30% less.

Then they moved to porting the software. Except it never ran well on consumer desktops because it was too power hungry, it had pretty good 3rd party support for being a workstation OS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXT is a great place to read about why NeXT failed. But it didnt have a damn thing to do with lack of software. Back then people bought a computer to use one or two pieces of software, if that. (in the business segment)

Quote :

"Furthermore, as Microsoft is a big company, they have the financial means to offer large incentives to equipment manufacturers like Dell and Compaq for installing Windows on all their new machines. Since the majority of Windows users purchased it with their computer and not from a store, this is an important thing to take note of. "

Antitrust ended that. You can buy Dell machines today with no OS. And Dell still offers its servers with Linux so far as I am aware. They dont offer anything else on home PC's because there IS NO COMPETING PRODUCT.

Quote :

"If Apple tried to subsidize Mac OS X, they would very likely lose money in the process rather than turning a profit, as, even if PC companies offered it as an option on their machine, most of the user base would choose Windows. "

As I showed, OSX is almost 95% profit margin. They currently charge 100 bucks a copy at that margin. 1/3 the retail cost of windows. They can drop prices oem and dont need to do it by much. And the best part is, even if 1/100 people choose OSX over windows, thats ONE MORE SALE THAN THEY WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE.

You dont have to take over the damn world overnight. It costs them NOTHING to open the OS for general retail. If no one buys it, its no large loss.

Quote :

"On top of all this, Microsoft could play a few dirty tricks, like they've done in the past, and tell all PC manufacturers offering Mac OS X as an option that if they were to continue doing so, they could no longer purchase Windows for their computers. As this would bankrupt the company, few OEMs would want to risk this."

Antitrust ended this. It does NOT happen in the US anymore, at least not in the OS market.

Quote :

"What that thread didn't tell you was that, on many computers, networking, sound, video, and other useful OS elements have trouble working. On my own, I have no sound or networking support, the system runs slowly, and the mouse cursor is jerky. Still, it's Mac OS X and I'm an Apple fanatic, so I'm not complaining too much, but your average user would likely not have this same point of view."

Guess what? Redhat has the same issues. And they are a damn profitable business. The junkies who want the thing to run on their custom hardware will make it do so.

Quote :

"On the driver issue, have you ever tried to write a driver? Drivers are complex things and to produce a single decent driver, it takes quite a bit of time. Even if Apple set their entire programming force to produce nothing but drivers, they would not have the knowledge of the device that the hardware producers do, and it would take a long period of time to write enough drivers to support a typical PC. Even then, the quality of the operating system on every PC would not be assured, and thus it would not be up to Apple's typical spec of quality."

It's called BSD, aka the core of OSX. You take the EXISTING DRIVERS for BSD, port them and whalah. And you dont have to support EVERY DEVICE, Windows ONLY does it because it's required to by law (government legacy contracts).

They dont have to write shit.

All they have to support are the configurations of the OEMs they provide to. For DELL (which has a stranglehold on the consumer desktop market), they have to support 3 chipsets, a handful of videocards that they ALREADY support, and three or four audio solutions.

It's not in ANY way expensive or intensive.

Quote :

"An excellent retort, if I do say so myself, but we've covered this issue earlier in this post. OEM manufacturers would have trouble including OS X on their machines and the majority of PC users wouldn't buy it even if they could, as Windows has a much broader base of software, and the Mac OS does not have a great selection of the things people buy PC's for. What's that? In a word: games."

People still buy linux, and OEM's on the local scale would ABSOLUTELY sell it.

And your latter argument is fucking wrong and stupid. Outside of a FEW industry specific applications, every damn piece of windows software has a mac equivalent.

OSX runs effectively vanilla OpenGL. And since the unreal engine and ID engines are completely cross platform (valve is the noteable exception right now), 3d games are and will continue to come to OSX. And saying that your OS will fail because it doesnt play GAMES, is absolutely stupid. BUSINESS PRODUCTIVITY and GENERAL CONSUMER USE sell computers. Gaming on PC's is still an incredibly niche market, speaking in overall industry terms.

Quote :

"Other posters have already covered this, but I figured that I'd provide a little history to prove why Apple currently subsists on hardware. "

I know the history quite well, ive read the books and seen the movies. And they subsist on hardware yes. I dont question that for a second.

The FACT of the matter is, the company has NEVER been profitable in it's entire damn history BECAUSE it subsists on the hardware. They have NEVER remained profitable after the falloff from a major release.

1) Apple II/IIe made them loot. They followed up with trash and almost bankrupted the company
2) The Macintosh was amazing, it made the company profitable again, until they saturated the market. They hit the plateau because, like today, you can only sell so many units at a cost significantly above that of the competition. Once Macintosh plateaued, they went south again
3) PowerMac and the G3 save the company again, finally they were more powerful than the PC counterpart and could do specialized worthwhile tasks. Then they rode the hell out of it with the G4 and G5, imac and emac's
4) Ipod

And here we sit. What are they going to do when they can no longer push a million ipods a month? Because if you take away the ipod, apple is losing money BIG TIME.

Quote :

"So, to all the tl;dr posters amongst us, here's your executive summary: if Apple were to port Mac OS X to the PC, they'd have a hard time selling it and maintaining the level of Apple quality across different PC configurations. The end result would be lost money, and, as embarking on a costly, money-wasting process is a bad idea, this is why we will never see Mac OS X on a vanilla x86 platform."

Apple is probably the best damn marketing tech company in existance, they'd have no trouble selling it. They dont have to ensure perfect quality across every pc on the planet, only current configurations. The end result is, if it works they make out like bandits and reshape the consumer market. If it fails, they arent out anymore than they were in the first place.

And I will be glad to bet you right now and here 100 bucks cash that we see OSX on vanilla pc's before 2010.

8/19/2005 1:26:18 AM

I didn't read that post above after a few lines.

So I'll add my own drivel.

You f00ls are NOT EVEN CONSIDERING the importance of MS Office for Macs before typing inane BS like ^ above who compares a service oriented server software company like RedHat to a predominantly desktop oriented company like Apple.

MS Office for Macs isn't Microsoft's fav product...it isn't even technically under any contract/negotiation to keep up the development. If Apple introduces a direct competitor to Windows, MS stops developing Office for Mac, and yes, no one wants to buy OSX.

Ofcourse, I am sure in his next post, Noen is gonna talk about Apple's own productivity suite or OpenOffice...but dude...Office for Mac is one of the most used applications on it.

Microsoft is a force to reckon with...you cannot just compete with it.

Also, Dell sells PCs with no Windows installed, and I am sure you believe that they are all top notch high end systems with the latest hardware technology...not to mention that they are really sold in huge numbers.

OK...time for noen to reply.

8/19/2005 1:39:28 AM